This would be the only biblical case then, where God changed the name of a person without effecting a major change in that person's life (e.g. Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel, and Saul to Paul).
Is there a sufficient justification for rejecting biblical precedent?
What if Jesus is elevating Rock (Peter) to the vice-regency (vice-king/prime minister) of the eternal Davidic kingdom, of which Jesus is king?
In fact, this can be proven from Scripture. We know from the Old Testament that the position of vice-regent of the House of David existed, and that its authority was represented by an oversized key which the vice-regent wore around his neck.
Isaiah 22:22In Revelation 3:7, we see that Jesus is the eternal king of the house of David, or "the power behind the keys."I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.
Revelation 3:7In Matthew, we see Jesus, the eternal king of the House of David, giving the keys of the eternal Davidic kingdom (the key of the vice-regency) to Rock (Peter)."To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of him who is holy and true [Jesus], who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open."
Matthew 16:19Jesus changes Simon's name to Rock when he elevates him to the position of vice-regent of the eternal Davidic kingdom (i.e., the head of Christ's Church, "the pillar and foundation of truth").I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
Hey, nobody’s arguing with you. I doubt seriously that lives have ever been more changed than in that climactic and incredible space of a few weeks during which Peter and Jesus had this interchange.
Those disciples, witnesses to marvelous events but still not understanding, would watch their leader die a gruesome death, lie for three days dead in a tomb, and come back to life to once again associate fully with them. They did not merely believe, they KNEW what they had seen and were willing to die defending it.
As for Peter, Jesus gave him the “keys to the kingdom,” and it was just weeks later that Peter opened wide the doors to those who would enter when he repeated his confession, expounding upon it in his marvelous sermon on Pentecost, establishing the church.
Peter’s life changed forever? Absolutely. And a changed world. Would that today’s world could be so touched, so convinced.
I think our only disagreement is that, while we must all admire the faith and service of all those whom you mention, as the Father pointed out so vividly to Peter at the Transfiguration: “This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him.” Peter himself recounted those words in II Peter.
I believe that Peter would be appalled at the suggestion that the church was built on him rather than on the lordship of Jesus.
To elevate or to bow or to pray to Peter, or to any other human living or dead, is dangerous and borders on blasphemy. Judging from his writings, the apostle himself would reject such practices.
Peace.